Cameron Is The Sheriff Of Nottingham

[rhondda rudie]

So he's done it.Cameron has refused to sign up to an EU agreement intended to stabilise the Eurozone because of the inclusion of a financial transaction tax (or Robin Hood tax as it's known in the UK).So what is this draconian measure that Cameron wants to protect the poor City against.Well,the average tax rate per transaction would be 0.05%.Critics claim this tax would cause companies to relocate but this claim doesn't bear scrutiny.The UK charges a stamp duty of 0.5% on sales of shares while none of our competitors does.This hasn't led to a stampede of companies fleeing.

The tax would raise £20 bn in the UK alone but for me the biggest attraction would be the fact that the sector responsible for this mess would be contributing to cleaning up this mess instead of leaving it to Mr and Mrs Bloggs.

[JB40]

just in case people aren't sure what it is that cameron is protecting, I thought it would be a good time to bring this back.



I'm sure we are all aware of the 'city of london'. An area of London that traditionally houses the head offices of banks and financial institutions. It's 1.2 square miles of top real estate. If we want to visit we just have to follow the road signs that say 'the city'.

London has a mayor [boris [crikey] johnson], but london also has a lord mayor, who is rarely seen. Most people couldn't tell you his name, and neither can I. Why would london need 2 mayors ?

There's history behind it too.
Back in 1067, William the conqueror went to 'the city' for a loan. Even at that point it was a centre of finance. In return for financing the new king, the financiers established a separate 'kingdom' in the centre of London. Through the centuries it developed it's own council, it's own local elections, and it's own representatives in parliament. Through the centuries the city bankrolled each monarch, enhancing there own separateness from the rules the rest of the population have to follow.

Today, when the queen makes an official visit [the bank of england, one of the oldest financial establishments, is right in the centre], she has to pass through a red rope after being invited by a city official. Emphasizing the kingdom within a kingdom. A ritual that dates back to the days of Elizabeth the first.

From it's inception the labour party had a policy of doing away with 'the city' altogether. Clement Atlee made a lot of noise about getting rid of this place where people lived outside the control of our democratically elected parliament. They never did. And tony blair removed any reference to reforming the city from the labour manifesto's.

Fast forward to today and the city is the centre of world tax avoidance.

Hiding behind all the pomp and ritual, multi-national corporations have set up offices for the sole intention off taking advantage of the fact that the city can make it's own laws, like the vatican. And the ability to avoid tax is the most important freedom of all.

So, back to the mayor mystery. Why do we need TWO mayors.??

well, we don't. The 'lord mayor' is there solely to represent the interest of the banks and financial institutions. And his remit is de-regulation. Essentially a lobbying firm for multi-national corporations.

the main banks, who all have there headquaters in the city, have nearly six hundred off-shore subsidiary's between them. Guernsey and Jersey are extensions of the city. And so are hundreds of other tax havens around the world. You could say that the city was a colonial power that has taken over the infrastructure of other countries [the bahamas, virgin islands, the channel islands and 100's of others], just so that REALLY rich people don't have to pay tax.

It's one of the main reasons that, even after all the democratic reform that has improved the lives of the middle classes, the rich get richer and the poor can hang.

and the bankers just carry on as if nothing has happened.

[anant_shah94]

May I just put it out there Jimmy? Since my school was founded, it's been inextricably linked to the City of London. Indeed we have very much to do with the Lord Mayor. The school band and 6th form march up to London each year, for St Matthews day, and shake the hand of the Lord Mayor blah blah blah.

Without the City of London/Lord Mayor, my school wouldn't exist, and the hundreds of thousands of students that have benefitted from the charity of my school would not have done so.

So for me, the City Of London is pretty damn important.

[JB40]

I don't think we can equate the success of one school with the amount of harm that lack of regulation and tax avoidance has inflicted on the ordinary people of this country anant. We shouldn't allow our own personal circumstances to blind us to the bigger picture.

[McDUB BOY aka Superal]

What a good read guys

[mrClaypole]

oh dear Im too drunk/stoned to post anything about the city of London..........its all "Knights Templar" thats all I can type now, my head of history is more concerned with where I left my can of beer?????, when I last went outside to breathe some air. Ill adjourn this next meeting in one of your nearest cities, the "Temple bar" area..........notice any similarity in the name?, no I dont either.

[nephertiti]

Originally Posted by JB40

just in case people aren't sure what it is that cameron is protecting, I thought it would be a good time to bring this back.



I'm sure we are all aware of the 'city of london'. An area of London that traditionally houses the head offices of banks and financial institutions. It's 1.2 square miles of top real estate. If we want to visit we just have to follow the road signs that say 'the city'.

London has a mayor [boris [crikey] johnson], but london also has a lord mayor, who is rarely seen. Most people couldn't tell you his name, and neither can I. Why would london need 2 mayors ?

There's history behind it too.
Back in 1067, William the conqueror went to 'the city' for a loan. Even at that point it was a centre of finance. In return for financing the new king, the financiers established a separate 'kingdom' in the centre of London. Through the centuries it developed it's own council, it's own local elections, and it's own representatives in parliament. Through the centuries the city bankrolled each monarch, enhancing there own separateness from the rules the rest of the population have to follow.

Today, when the queen makes an official visit [the bank of england, one of the oldest financial establishments, is right in the centre], she has to pass through a red rope after being invited by a city official. Emphasizing the kingdom within a kingdom. A ritual that dates back to the days of Elizabeth the first.

From it's inception the labour party had a policy of doing away with 'the city' altogether. Clement Atlee made a lot of noise about getting rid of this place where people lived outside the control of our democratically elected parliament. They never did. And tony blair removed any reference to reforming the city from the labour manifesto's.

Fast forward to today and the city is the centre of world tax avoidance.

Hiding behind all the pomp and ritual, multi-national corporations have set up offices for the sole intention off taking advantage of the fact that the city can make it's own laws, like the vatican. And the ability to avoid tax is the most important freedom of all.

So, back to the mayor mystery. Why do we need TWO mayors.??

well, we don't. The 'lord mayor' is there solely to represent the interest of the banks and financial institutions. And his remit is de-regulation. Essentially a lobbying firm for multi-national corporations.

the main banks, who all have there headquaters in the city, have nearly six hundred off-shore subsidiary's between them. Guernsey and Jersey are extensions of the city. And so are hundreds of other tax havens around the world. You could say that the city was a colonial power that has taken over the infrastructure of other countries [the bahamas, virgin islands, the channel islands and 100's of others], just so that REALLY rich people don't have to pay tax.

It's one of the main reasons that, even after all the democratic reform that has improved the lives of the middle classes, the rich get richer and the poor can hang.

and the bankers just carry on as if nothing has happened.

Have read this about 4 X ...... it is incredible ...I have now quoted it ...makes me look very knowledgeable....

[anant_shah94]

Originally Posted by JB40

I don't think we can equate the success of one school with the amount of harm that lack of regulation and tax avoidance has inflicted on the ordinary people of this country anant. We shouldn't allow our own personal circumstances to blind us to the bigger picture.

I don't think it's a personal circumstance as such Jimmy. It is through the generosity of the city of London that hundreds of thousands of people have benefited from what my school has to offer.

450 years ago homeless kids were being taken off the streets of london and given an education. To an extent, the same ethos is being applied today, with the city of london/lord mayor being a benefactor. Interestingly, somewhere in the region of 60% of pupils at my school pay absolutely no fees at all.

I'm not trying to justify tax avoidance or anything like that, just making the point that there is a definite good side to these guys.

[JB40]

well Anant, they wouldn't be the first gangsters to hide behind good causes.

that's what happens when people become filthy rich illegally, they construct a veneer of respectability.

Left unregulated, the city has removed any relationship it may have had with the infrastructure of this country. Since thatcher there has been a rapid decline in inward investment, that's why manufacturing declined in the UK. The money that passes through the city is drained out of the economy. it controls the economies of countless tax havens, and deregulation enabled Lehmann's to sell the toxic debt packages that were the route cause of 2008's 'credit crunch'.


so the damage that the city has inflicted on ordinary working people [on a GLOBAL scale] can't be compensated for by investing in a few 'good causes'.

by your criteria we would be seeing Al Capone as a hero rather than cold blooded killer, just because he was generous to an orphanage.

[JB40]

according to the latest figures [as quoted by Will hutton in the observer], the financial services industry represents about 7.5% of GDP, and employs about a million people.

of that 7.5%, only about a third of it specifically relates to 'the city'.

of that [less than] 3%, only a fraction of that will be effected by a 'robin hood' tax. This is the so-called 'casino' banking that lead to the banking collapse of 2008. It constitutes just a handful of foreign investment banks and hedge funds.

coincidentally [?], these hedge funds are the biggest donors to the Tory party.

what cameron has done is put at risk any chance of growth in manufacturing, just to protect a tiny cabal of hedge fund managers, who just happen to be the most generous donors to his party.

same old tories, looking after their own.